01947nas a2200241   4500008004100000020002200041245011200063210006900175260004100244300001200285490000700297520102300304653003401327653002401361653004701385653002401432653002101456653007001477100001301547700001401560700001001574856012101584       2006                        eng d  a0022-0655 (Print)00aComparing methods of assessing differential item functioning in a computerized adaptive testing environment0 aComparing methods of assessing differential item functioning in   bBlackwell Publishing: United Kingdom  a245-2640 v433 aMantel-Haenszel and SIBTEST, which have known difficulty in detecting non-unidirectional differential item functioning (DIF), have been adapted with some success for computerized adaptive testing (CAT). This study adapts logistic regression (LR) and the item-response-theory-likelihood-ratio test (IRT-LRT), capable of detecting both unidirectional and non-unidirectional DIF, to the CAT environment in which pretest items are assumed to be seeded in CATs but not used for trait estimation. The proposed adaptation methods were evaluated with simulated data under different sample size ratios and impact conditions in terms of Type I error, power, and specificity in identifying the form of DIF. The adapted LR and IRT-LRT procedures are more powerful than the CAT version of SIBTEST for non-unidirectional DIF detection. The good Type I error control provided by IRT-LRT under extremely unequal sample sizes and large impact is encouraging. Implications of these and other findings are discussed. all rights reserved)10acomputerized adaptive testing10aeducational testing10aitem response theory likelihood ratio test10alogistic regression10atrait estimation10aunidirectional & non-unidirectional differential item functioning1 aLei, P-W1 aChen, S-Y1 aYu, L  uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/comparing-methods-assessing-differential-item-functioning-computerized-adaptive-testing01559nas a2200169   4500008004100000245008000041210006900121300001200190490000700202520094200209653002101151653003001172653005401202100001401256700001301270856010601283       2005                        eng d00aControlling item exposure and test overlap in computerized adaptive testing0 aControlling item exposure and test overlap in computerized adapt  a204-2170 v293 aThis article proposes an item exposure control method, which is the extension of the Sympson and Hetter procedure and can provide item exposure control at both the item and test levels. Item exposure rate and test overlap rate are two indices commonly used to track item exposure in computerized adaptive tests. By considering both indices, item exposure can be monitored at both the item and test levels. To control the item exposure rate and test overlap rate simultaneously, the modified procedure attempted to control not only the maximum value but also the variance of item exposure rates. Results indicated that the item exposure rate and test overlap rate could be controlled simultaneously by implementing the modified procedure. Item exposure control was improved and precision of trait estimation decreased when a prespecified maximum test overlap rate was stringent. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA ) (journal abstract)10aAdaptive Testing10aComputer Assisted Testing10aItem Content (Test) computerized adaptive testing1 aChen, S-Y1 aLei, P-W  uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/controlling-item-exposure-and-test-overlap-computerized-adaptive-testing01993nas a2200193   4500008004100000020002200041245011400063210006900177260004100246300001200287490000700299520125600306653003401562653002501596653002601621100001401647700001901661856011901680       2004                        eng d  a0022-0655 (Print)00aEffects of practical constraints on item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing0 aEffects of practical constraints on item selection rules at the   bBlackwell Publishing: United Kingdom  a149-1740 v413 aThe purpose of this study was to compare the effects of four item selection rules--(1) Fisher information (F), (2) Fisher information with a posterior distribution (FP), (3) Kullback-Leibler information with a posterior distribution (KP), and (4) completely randomized item selection (RN)--with respect to the precision of trait estimation and the extent of item usage at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing. The comparison of the four item selection rules was carried out under three conditions: (1) using only the item information function as the item selection criterion; (2) using both the item information function and content balancing; and (3) using the item information function, content balancing, and item exposure control. When test length was less than 10 items, FP and KP tended to outperform F at extreme trait levels in Condition 1. However, in more realistic settings, it could not be concluded that FP and KP outperformed F, especially when item exposure control was imposed. When test length was greater than 10 items, the three nonrandom item selection procedures performed similarly no matter what the condition was, while F had slightly higher item usage. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)10acomputerized adaptive testing10aitem selection rules10apractical constraints1 aChen, S-Y1 aAnkenmann, R D  uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/effects-practical-constraints-item-selection-rules-early-stages-computerized-adaptive01801nas a2200241   4500008004100000245009300041210006900134300001200203490000700215520098200222653001801204653002101222653003001243653001901273653004601292653001801338653002501356653001501381100001401396700001901410700001501429856011501444       2003                        eng d00aThe relationship between item exposure and test overlap in computerized adaptive testing0 arelationship between item exposure and test overlap in computeri  a129-1450 v403 aThe purpose of this article is to present an analytical derivation for the mathematical form of an average between-test overlap index as a function of the item exposure index, for fixed-length computerized adaptive tests (CATs). This algebraic relationship is used to investigate the simultaneous control of item exposure at both the item and test levels. The results indicate that, in fixed-length CATs, control of the average between-test overlap is achieved via the mean and variance of the item exposure rates of the items that constitute the CAT item pool. The mean of the item exposure rates is easily manipulated. Control over the variance of the item exposure rates can be achieved via the maximum item exposure rate (r-sub(max)). Therefore, item exposure control methods which implement a specification of r-sub(max) (e.g., J. B. Sympson and R. D. Hetter, 1985) provide the most direct control at both the item and test levels. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA )10a(Statistical)10aAdaptive Testing10aComputer Assisted Testing10aHuman Computer10aInteraction computerized adaptive testing10aItem Analysis10aItem Analysis (Test)10aTest Items1 aChen, S-Y1 aAnkenmann, R D1 aSpray, J A  uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/relationship-between-item-exposure-and-test-overlap-computerized-adaptive-testing01389nas a2200193   4500008004100000245009400041210006900135300001200204490000700216520067900223653002100902653003000923653002500953653005700978100001401035700001901049700001901068856010801087       2000                        eng d00aA comparison of item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing0 acomparison of item selection rules at the early stages of comput  a241-2550 v243 aThe effects of 5 item selection rules--Fisher information (FI), Fisher interval information (FII), Fisher information with a posterior distribution (FIP), Kullback-Leibler information (KL), and Kullback-Leibler information with a posterior distribution (KLP)--were compared with respect to the efficiency and precision of trait (θ) estimation at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing (CAT). FII, FIP, KL, and KLP performed marginally better than FI at the early stages of CAT for θ=-3 and -2. For tests longer than 10 items, there appeared to be no precision advantage for any of the selection rules. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA ) (journal abstract)10aAdaptive Testing10aComputer Assisted Testing10aItem Analysis (Test)10aStatistical Estimation computerized adaptive testing1 aChen, S-Y1 aAnkenmann, R D1 aChang, Hua-Hua  uhttp://www.iacat.org/content/comparison-item-selection-rules-early-stages-computerized-adaptive-testing